MAT's are dangerous

[[email protected]]

Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring lost a well respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal sailplane accident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots operating without Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task when he collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite direction to the final turnpoint.

What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?

Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a collision?

Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde.
1. Start North
2. Callaghan
3. UnoMasPc
4. Leakey
5. Batesville
6. Finish

For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due north of Uvalde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from the Leaky turnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with gliders flying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good day, you are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which is a closure rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus clouds, essentially on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).

Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses between aircraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative movement in your vision?

So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing in opposite direction of each other should be avoided.

During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening because there is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders traveling in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits become more technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal centering devices, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.

If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the dangers that exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many pilots will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until they are ready to start and then return through the cylinder.

Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to happen. Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't happen again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an MAT.

And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:05:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring lost a well respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal sailplane accident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots operating without Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task when he collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite direction to the final turnpoint.
>
> What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?
>
> Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a collision?
>
> Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde.
> 1. Start North
> 2. Callaghan
> 3. UnoMasPc
> 4. Leakey
> 5. Batesville
> 6. Finish
>
> For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due north of Uvalde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from the Leaky turnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with gliders flying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good day, you are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which is a closure rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus clouds, essentially on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).
>
> Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses between aircraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative movement in your vision?
>
> So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing in opposite direction of each other should be avoided.
>
> During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening because there is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders traveling in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits become more technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal centering devices, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.
>
> If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the dangers that exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many pilots will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until they are ready to start and then return through the cylinder.
>
> Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to happen.. Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't happen again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an MAT.
>
> And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???

Sean/Wilbur, while you are making some good points regarding the racing component missing or diminished in MAT's, conflating that with safety is not appropriate. For over 5 years now we have had PFlarm and it is mandatory in many contests. Going in and out of assigned turn points (with a 180 deg turn) creates the same situation as described above and we handle it just fine.. Having a 10 mi or so turn area in fact separates the effective turn points widely for each contestant in a way to can be said to improve safety. As you have stated yourself, the most gliders you see in an assigned race are right at the turn points. Your arguments on MAT's and safety to not hold water.
Herb

[WB]

And yet the task you show is an AT. How many head-on collisions have occurred during MAT tasks? Come to think of it, how do mid-airs break down by task type? I'd bet that either the data is too sparse to be meaningful or that AT's have the most mid-airs (adjusted per task called) because of more gaggling. I'd be willing to bet, as well, that AT's (per task called) have the highest accident/damage rate of any task (more gaggling, more landouts, more risk of flying into bad weather). Don't get me wrong, I hate MAT's with a passion and I love AT's, but any type of task can be set up to be dangerous. It has been my experience that most CD's and task advisors are conscientious about avoiding head-on tasking. Not an easy job in contests with multiple classes.

I don't mean to offend, but are you really interested in safety or do you really just want rid of MAT's? I can get behind a movement to reduce the use of MAT's, but I don't care for the use of the safety issue as a mask for real motives.

Wallace (yes, that's my real name) Berry

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Tiffany:
Take away his keyboard. Change his passwords. Please! It's going to be a long winter
:)
John Cochrane BB

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 14:05 26 October 2016, wrote:
>Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring
lost a
>well=
> respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal
sailplane
>acc=
>ident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots
operating
>without=
> Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task
when
>he=
> collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite
direction to
>th=
>e final turnpoint.
>
>What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?
>
>Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a
collision?
>
>Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde. =20
>1. Start North
>2. Callaghan
>3. UnoMasPc
>4. Leakey
>5. Batesville
>6. Finish
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due
north of
>U=
>valde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from
the Leaky
>t=
>urnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with
gliders
>fl=
>ying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good
day, you
>=
>are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which
is a
>closure=
> rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus
clouds,
>essentia=
>lly on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).
>
>Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses
between
>ai=
>rcraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative
>movement=
> in your vision?=20
>
>So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing
in
>oppo=
>site direction of each other should be avoided.
>
>During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening
because there
>=
>is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders
traveling
>=
>in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits
become
>m=
>ore technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal
centering
>device=
>s, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.
>
>If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the
dangers
>t=
>hat exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many
pilots
>=
>will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until
they
>a=
>re ready to start and then return through the cylinder.
>
>Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to
happen.
>=
> Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't
>happe=
>n again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an
MAT.
>
>And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???
>
As far as I am aware the MAT is unique to the USA, I had to look up
what it was. Having looked it up I can see the reason why the rest
of the world does not do it.
Gaggling in the start sector has dangers, of course, but set against
that is that pilots expect gaggling in this area and their awareness
is, or should be heightened. The expectation is perhaps much less
when out on a task when pilots might expect to see other gliders in
a thermal or travelling in the same direction as themselves. Their
reasoning is faulty but understandable.
In general, competitions in the UK set both the turnpoints and the
order of visitation, both for Assigned Task (AT) and Assigned Area
Task (AAT). From time to time an inexperienced contest director will
set an early turnpoint with an out leg close to the reciprocal of the
in leg, which can be hazardous. This does not of course preclude
meeting a non-contest glider flying a reciprocal leg on his own task.
From a logical standpoint, having looked at the rules for a MAT I
would not want to set such a task, or indeed any task where the in
and out legs to a TP are close.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

But, you missed something there, Wilbur. This was an ASSIGNED task. It just happened that the run from the next to last turnpoint, to the last turnpoint, and home were on almost reverse courses. And if the guy heading for home is "fat" and the guy going to the last turn is "a bit below where he would like to be", well, they are at the same altitude, at the same point in space, going opposite directions.

Your point about MATs being dangerous because "this could happen" is missing the point that this task set it up to happen (opposite direction, likely close altitude instead of spread over the working band). And, it is only when the CD requires a close in, steering turnpoint on a MAT, that you run the risk of it happening again.

The lesson from this is do not have a 180 degree turn at a final turnpoint close to home. The lesson is not MAT tasks are deadly dangerous.

If you want to know why we are doing MAT's ask Eric Mozer. If my memory serves me correctly, it is an outgrowth of the Pilot Option Speed Task, which I believe, he designed.

Steve Leonard

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I agree with you Herb.

When I competed, I had more safety concerns on course in large gaggles (regionals and nationals) than I had on runs or turn points.

I guess, the "safety aspect" brought up will lead to banning ridge ontest flights (Mifflin, Ridge Soaring, Newcastle come to mind, I've flown all 3 places) due to even narrower height bands and even higher speeds!
Best example, the Newcastle "back ridge dump task" (to the tunnels by Blacksburg) can have dry speeds over 120MPH, that's a 240MPH closure speed.

[[email protected]]

A ridge out and back is drastically different. You know exactly where the opposite glider traffic will be as it is very obvious. You simply look right down the spine of the ridge.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Where is the like button?! All this talk of AATs, MATs, ATs, TATs, TITs (sorry different group) I miss the straight out out!


On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 8:16:07 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> Tiffany:
> Take away his keyboard. Change his passwords. Please! It's going to be a long winter
> :)
> John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

Thank you Wallace for sharing your hatred for MAT's.

Yes, the task I brought into light was in fact an AT. That is correct. Which is exactly my point. If this task was slightly different, with an extra turnpoint positioned off course to steer gliders away from a head on collision, then Chris O'Callaghan might be alive today.

We can learn from the past to prevent another air disaster.

So I will pose this question: With a MAT, what is limited pilots from choosing routes that go opposite direction flight paths just like this AT?


Yes Flarm helps to mitagate that threat, but the threat is still there. Calling a task that routes gliders head on with each other is a major mistake.. Allowing an MAT that allows gliders to route themselves head on with gliders is also a major mistake.

What is safer? A controlled route AT that does NOT pose a threat of a mid air or a uncontrolled random route in all MAT's?

My position is that MAT's have two concerns. 1. Like Wallace Berry mentioned, they are not any fun. And 2. More importantly, it decreases safety as opposed to the alternative.

Who will have the next mid air? Will it be you Herb? You say you can handle it just fine with flarm, but nobody is immune to accidents, nobody. As soon as you adopt that attitude, your chances of having an accident have drastically.

There are bold pilots and old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 5:23:25 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> A ridge out and back is drastically different. You know exactly where the opposite glider traffic will be as it is very obvious. You simply look right down the spine of the ridge.

"Simply"? - it can be very easy to fail to pick up a glider that is on a direct head-on collision path and being on a ridge makes that no easier - especially as the closing speeds may be very high.

[Michael Opitz]

>If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the
dangers that exist when pilots are gaggling around the start
cylinder. Many pilots will fly out of the way by many miles just to
avoid this issue until they are ready to start and then return
through the cylinder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And when you go to Benalla, you won't be able to avoid gaggles at
all unless you want to be at the bottom of the score sheet. You will
have pre-start gaggles of ~60 gliders, and especially on blue days,
you will have most of the class in a single gaggle all the way around
a 400 mile course through the outback. That is the nature of FAI
speed tasks. If you want to do well, you have to get comfortable
with gaggle flying, like it or not. FLARM has helped a lot, but you
will never get the mid-air risk to be zero. Been there, done that,
got the T-shirt with a second place podium finish at the 1987
Benalla WGC.....

I remember one long task where John Byrd and I climbed through
the entire gaggle on 3 separate occasions, only to be the first to
lead out from on top. We then wound up low and looking for lift as
the gaggle ran over the top of us, and we had to start from the
bottom all over again. Three times we repeated that, on one task
alone....

I was never on the USA RC, but as I recall, we only had one
company that would insure gliders back then. I believe there were
either veiled or open threats by the insurer to drop all gliders
altogether unless the SSA did something to mitigate the insurance
claims from mid-airs and mass land-outs in contests. The bigger
turn point cylinders were partly to de-congest the air right over the
turn point. They were also to give the CD some flexibility on a
thunderstorm day so the whole class wouldn't have a mass land-out
due to the turn point being obscured by weather. That rule has
(IMO) been abused by CDs who don't want to be blamed for a poor
call. I believe a lot of those rules came to be before FLARM existed,
so maybe, they can be re-visited now.

I really think that most USA pilots who vote in the polls don't like,
and are uncomfortable with gaggle flying. That may be a key
reason that USA teams have not fared well in recent years. The
USA contest taskings get rid of most gaggles, while an FAI WGC will
just say "We have FLARM now. Get over it." Looking back at my
own experience, I think I can say that I was more comfortable in
gaggles than most other pilots due to my military formation
experience. I have been used to flying very close to others in all
sorts of weather and other duress. This allowed me to have the SA
(situational awareness) to be able to climb through entire WGC
gaggles while most other pilots were just frozen on looking at the
guy ahead of them. I even had WGC competitors (more than once)
come up to me afterwards and ask how I was able to do it.

So, my short answer is USA guys that vote prefer OLC flying versus
gaggle flying, which is what changing to FAI rules will portend.
Most of the guys that vote have no shot at making the team, and
they are uncomfortable in gaggles. In the past, USA team selection
has only been a by-product of a USA nationals. The SSA will tell
you that the USA nationals are there to select a national champion.
There is no mention of team selection. With the rules they way they
are now, we are choosing champions who are very good pilots, but
who also may not have a lot of SA when thrown into gaggles of 40-
60 other gliders. The "lone wolf" versus "team player" deal is a
whole other matter unto itself again....

FWIW.... RO

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 8:05:56 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring lost a well respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal sailplane accident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots operating without Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task when he collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite direction to the final turnpoint.
>
> What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?
>
> Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a collision?
>
> Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde.
> 1. Start North
> 2. Callaghan
> 3. UnoMasPc
> 4. Leakey
> 5. Batesville
> 6. Finish
>
> For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due north of Uvalde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from the Leaky turnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with gliders flying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good day, you are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which is a closure rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus clouds, essentially on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).
>
> Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses between aircraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative movement in your vision?
>
> So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing in opposite direction of each other should be avoided.
>
> During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening because there is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders traveling in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits become more technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal centering devices, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.
>
> If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the dangers that exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many pilots will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until they are ready to start and then return through the cylinder.
>
> Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to happen.. Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't happen again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an MAT.
>
> And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???

Human's cause accidents, incidents. Also, it's really easy to find anyone these days. Hint, you been busted.

Several mid airs with AT.

Uvalde 2008
Uvalde
Saturday, August 09, 2008

Official
15 Meter Class Day 4

Task: Assigned
ID Name Distance(Miles) Radius
58 GPS Start E 0.00 5.0
46 Pinto Creek 44.72
42 Medina LkDam 137.14
13 Cotulla 213.53
56 FINISH GATE 275.02

Heading to first TP. Between a V2 and Genesis 2. The V2 flew back to Uvalde and the Genesis 2 pilot bailed out. He did have back injury's from the hard landing. I was their.

32nd FAI World Gliding Championships-Uvalde, Texas USA
August 17, 2012 ·
News update: A midair collision between two 15-Meter class gliders happened at around 15:30, about 30 km southwest of Uvalde.
Loius Bourderlique of France (glider FB) was able to fly back to Uvalde and land safely. Peter Hartmann of Austria (glider PC) bailed out and rode his parachute to a good landing. He was picked up by helicopter, returned to the Uvalde airfield, then taken to a local hospital for precautionary checks..
Ken Sorenson - Championship Director
Friday, 17 August 2012 16:37

Task for Meter 15 on 17 August 2012, Task cancelled

Task version: 1
Turnpoint Distance Direction Observation zone
04 Start C 8.97 km 293.1° Line 10.00 km (Radius 5.00 km)
25 Nash Rc 35.92 km 132.2° Cylinder R=0.50 km
31 Crystal C 51.35 km 235.2° Cylinder R=0.50 km
16 ChalkBlff 76.00 km 347.2° Cylinder R=0.50 km
59 CmmnchCvs 93.98 km 38.6° Cylinder R=0.50 km
48 Devine 107.25 km 156.5° Cylinder R=0.50 km
76 ElJardnRc 122.92 km 196.0° Cylinder R=0.50 km
01 FINISH 130.98 km 340.6° Cylinder R=3.00 km
Total: 618.41 km

The above was a AT. I do not support zero turn MAT's. Nor 1 turn or 2 turn with say a 3 hr. window as I feel they are not fair or equal for all. But multiple, say 10 turn MAT's are good as it allows the slower guys to get home. As a CD I have called these multiple 10 turn MAT's. Some said it was their best day they ever had. Many disliked the old POST task's when called. But much better than the old downwind dash for sure, which might be the root cause for contest decline.
Most, if not all, CD's (and their advisers) are aware of "angles" when calling TP's. I have been hammered by some entrants when the inbound/ outbound angle is around 30 degrees.

Best. Tom #711.

[WB]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:37:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Thank you Wallace for sharing your hatred for MAT's.
>
> Yes, the task I brought into light was in fact an AT. That is correct. Which is exactly my point. If this task was slightly different, with an extra turnpoint positioned off course to steer gliders away from a head on collision, then Chris O'Callaghan might be alive today.
>
> We can learn from the past to prevent another air disaster.
>
> So I will pose this question: With a MAT, what is limited pilots from choosing routes that go opposite direction flight paths just like this AT?
>
>
> Yes Flarm helps to mitagate that threat, but the threat is still there. Calling a task that routes gliders head on with each other is a major mistake. Allowing an MAT that allows gliders to route themselves head on with gliders is also a major mistake.
>
> What is safer? A controlled route AT that does NOT pose a threat of a mid air or a uncontrolled random route in all MAT's?
>
> My position is that MAT's have two concerns. 1. Like Wallace Berry mentioned, they are not any fun. And 2. More importantly, it decreases safety as opposed to the alternative.
>
> Who will have the next mid air? Will it be you Herb? You say you can handle it just fine with flarm, but nobody is immune to accidents, nobody. As soon as you adopt that attitude, your chances of having an accident have drastically.
>
> There are bold pilots and old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Well, maybe I should have qualified what I said about MAT's. I don't like the standard MAT with just a couple of turns. However, I can see that they have their place. I just feel that they are used too often. And, I really do like the "long MAT's" that 711 mentions in his post. Best thing next to an AT.

I also will state this more plainly: I think doing away with MAT's would NOT have an effect on safety.

WB

[Sean[_2_]]

I like some of what Wilber has offered, but this particular Uvalde accident is something that I would NOT have brought up as an argument for or against any particular task type.

All accidents are hard to take. Especially for those of us closely involved.. But they are all accidents! That head on accident was a terrible, shocking one. The pilot involved was well liked and well known. In the end, we learned the lessons that we could together. But that accident was not the fault of the contest organizers or the CD. We all have to be very careful not to blame organizers or CDs for "accidents." These folks are all highly focused on safety, period. As is the SSA. That is unquestionable. Undeniable. Safety is a prime function of the SSA. I completely respect and support that safety focus.

I was the manager of a contest in Ionia, MI where we had a "very difficult" fatal accident. The accident occurred in plain view of 20-30 people (including my wife and my close friend), at the airport. It was an awful experience for everyone involved. Gut wrenching. Later, several attacked us here on RAS by claiming that conditions were perhaps too windy to call a task. That was very hard to take. I don't want any other organizers ever to have to endure that kind of attack or accusation, even if the charge is somewhat indirect.

Fatal soaring accidents would still occur even if we allowed only a single glider into the sky at a time!

Fortunately, the rewards of soaring and soaring competition outweigh the risks (by a huge margin). Most of us choose to accept the risks. Sure the sport of soaring can always be safer. It is improving all the time in varios ways. But, we should be very careful to not even "hint" blame at the contest organizers. This is unfair and is enormously destructive. Our SSA folks are extremely safety conscious. Period. End of story. But we are all imperfect as pilots, and real risk always exists in a sport with such high energy and potentially, closing speed.

In the five years that I have been competing in contests; I have watched numerous US (and Canadian) task committee's (led by CD's of course) carefully (and often painstakingly) set their tasks with this exact lesson in mind. I have even watched them orally state, "we need more separation here..." Entry/exit angle safety considerations in the task setting process seem to be a standard procedure. Unfortunately, glider pilots still aggressively fly along the lines of lift. This is true in all conditions and all task types. So the task type doesn't really matter. Even OLC flying has this risk! Even a 90 degree offset (AT, MAT, or TAT) often still results in a head-on situation. I remember a somewhat scary head-on entry/exit line (not down low on a ridge but up at high altitude, screaming) at Nephi this past summer. There is only so much that we can do about this.

Those, all too common, head-on situations are the main reason I fought the stealth mode effort aggressively. I, for one, do not want to lose one micron of potential safety that Flarm provides. Flarm leech me all you wish. I don't care. I would rather have a higher chance of detecting possible head-ons.

In support of Wilber, I do believe that the unassigned portion of a MAT is very difficult to manage from a safety perspective. I agree MAT's are higher risk tasks. Gliders in this portion of the MAT are all over the place. It is difficult to predic. A pilot could be doing something that doesnt make weather sense just to burn off altitude and completely surprise you. A glider can be coming into the same turnpoint from several directions, even the opposite direction! This happens often in fact. All that randomness can be pure chaos as pilots generally zip around the finish airport adding turnpoints while running out the remaining clock. Finally gliders end up finishing FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. Stupid. Just stupid! Everyone see's a different way to use up the remaining time in a MAT. This MAT "unpredictability" is very much like the US start gaggle, 2 min below max height, up, down, spinning all around madness while preparing to start out the top. What a safety nightmare our starting system is. Even TAT's can be a little unpredictable with pilots coming in and out of the last clouds in a turn area.

I have mentioned this to senior SSA folks recently and they simply brushed me off. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never seen this, etc. Quite shocking. So, there is some real work left to do here on safety in regards to US rules, even though I beleive everyone is doing their best.

I wanted to make those brief comments, for whatever it is worth.

Sincerely,

Sean